Because most of the folks who own DX and need the captures available from a heavy, expensive UWA prime like this Sigma will also own a (far superior for UWA) FX body like I do.

Or they would have settled for the good 10.5mm DX f/2.8 fisheye plus the good DX 12-24mm f/4 a long time ago like I did before Nikon gave us the FX D3.

Nikon did just release the US$300 DX 10-20mm zoom, which seems to me like exactly what the DX market segment probably wants.

MonkeySpanner

I agree that the 10-20 is exactly what the DX market wants. That along with a cheap, small 22/2 would be fantastic.

TurtleCat

Nope. You are making one grand assumption.

Allen_Wentz

I think you may be the one making the wrong grand assumption. Fact is that the primary volume of DX sales, by a lot, is D3xxx, D5xxx and the lower end of D7xxx; not D500 buyers like me.

TurtleCat

Yes, and does that mean the people who buy those would not buy DX lenses, especially primes? No, we have no idea since Nikon never bothered to make them even when there was no FX camera. And now that the market is smaller and being pushed to high end it makes even more sense to make higher end DX lenses. Thom’s surveys have shown this year in and year out.

Captain Megaton

Why struggle and buy a $1000 24/1.4 for DX when you can get better results with a $500 35/1.8 on FX?

Allen is right. Carping about the lack of high end DX prime lenses is pointless, better performance is already available for less money on FX across the board.

TurtleCat

Struggle? I mean, come on and be serious. Even the 23 1.4 for Fuji doesn’t cost that much. And why should I be penalized for the camera choice I make? I have had FX cameras in the past so I’m quite familiar with FX lenses. It’s my call whether the trade off is in my benefit or not.

Captain Megaton

A crop format SLR mount is not going to be able to offer competitive fast, wide prime lenses with a modern, native mirrorless mount. You deserve to be penalized because you didn’t understand this basic point and buy yourself a an X-mount camera if you hate FX so much.

TurtleCat

Such a reactionary and predictable comment. You acknowledge that there is a market for APS lenses at least. And if Nikon had made more quality APS lenses before there probably wouldn’t be a Fuji X. You deserve to be penalized for undermining your own argument.

Captain Megaton

Demand? Of course there is demand, there is also a demand for unicorns. The kind of lenses Fuji can make for X mount cannot be implemented on an SLR mount. How many years have to pass before you DX guys come to grips with this basic fact?

TurtleCat

Who is asking for mirrorless designs? Who said it has to be small? I’m drawing the analogy that there is demand. Nikon should produce it. Indeed they should have even before FX. Perhaps there would not be Fuji or others if they had. Thom’s surveys have shown this.

Captain Megaton

If size and cost are not constraints, then Nikon already makes a full set of primes for DX cameras.

decentrist

don’t hold your breath

TurtleCat

Yeah, all those D7500 and D500 people are after the cheap stuff. Yep. You speak for all of us.

Allen_Wentz

No need to get your panties twisted, I said “most” not “all.” Also note that neither the 10.5mm fish nor the 12-24mm zoom that I mentioned and own are “cheap stuff.”

TurtleCat

You specifically said most already have a FX camera, not that most would not be interested. Two separate things. The 12-24 isn’t cheap but also more than a decade old and not exactly matched to modern sensors. The 10-24 and new one are also not aimed at the D500/7500 crowd.

16mm is but one prime example and certainly not the only DX prime of interest. And 2.8 from a zoom is not the same as a 1.4 prime.

And if we are talking about limited number of photographers then a number of FX lenses certainly fall into that range.

In any case, Thom’s surveys have shown year in and year out that people would buy more DX lenses if good ones were available.

EnPassant

This will be a perfect addition to Nikon’s DX mirrorless system! Oh wait…

As long as it weighs and costs less than a full-frame 24mm f/1.4, its got a chance at success.

KnightPhoto

Weird that they went Contemporary. I guess if they have a really good price performance ratio it may be of interest to more people. Personally I have the Tokina f/2 14-20mm and am very happy with that lens.

I recommend the Tokina 14-20 f/2 be considered as an alternative to people that might consider this Sigma 16mm. The Tokina f/2 is very sharp and delivers professional results.

Can’t remember if you reviewed the 14-20, I enjoyed your 11-20 review!

Definitely a good recommendation! The 14-20 is a fantastic APS-C lens. I guess we’ll have to see how good this Sigma is wide open at 1.4…

Yeah, there’s two ways they could go with this “Contemporary” label.

Sigma either knows that the lens itself isn’t optically good enough to qualify for “Art” status,

OR,

…they made a plenty-good lens, but are simply putting a “C” on it instead of an “A”, so that they can sell it slightly cheaper and go for volume sales. In other words, the lens may very well deserve an “A” label, and this was just a business decision.

Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense, and leads us to believe that this Sigma lens will indeed be 100% mirrorless.

Mistral75

Of course it will be 100% mirrorless, or rather dedicated to short-flanged mounts. Look at the position of the rear element: there is no way you can ‘shave’ almost 3cm from the rear of the casing to make way for the longer flange-to-sensor distance of an SLR mount.